1  

Deception studies manipulating centrally acting performance modifiers: A review

Emily L Williams1, Hollie S Jones1, S Andy Sparks1, David Marchant1, Dominic Micklewright2 and

Lars R. Mc Naughton1

1 Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, UK

2 University of Essex, Colchester Essex, UK

Address all Correspondence to:

Professor Lars Mc Naughton

Edge Hill University

Department of Sport and Physical Activity

Ormskirk

Lancashire L39 4QP

ENGLAND

Email: lars.mcnaughton@edgehill.ac.uk

Telephone: +441695 657296

 

2  

Deception studies manipulating centrally acting performance modifiers: A review

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND SOURCE OF FUNDING

The authors have no conflicts of Interest

There are no sources of funding for this work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3  

Abstract Athletes anticipatorily set, and continuously adjust pacing strategies prior to and

during events, in order to produce optimal performance. Self-regulation ensures maximal effort

is exerted in correspondence with the endpoint of exercise, whilst preventing physiological

changes that are detrimental and disruptive to homeostatic control. The integration of

feedforward and feedback information, together with the proposed brain’s performance

modifiers, are said to be fundamental to this anticipatory and continuous regulation of exercise.

Manipulation of central, regulatory internal and external stimuli has been a key focus within

deception research, attempting to influence the self-regulation of exercise and induce

improvements in performance. Methods of manipulating performance modifiers such as

unknown task endpoint, deceived duration or intensity feedback, self-belief or previous

experience creates a challenge within research, as although they contextualise theoretical

propositions, there are few ecological and practical approaches which integrate theory with

practice. Additionally the different methods and measures demonstrated in manipulation

studies have produced inconsistent results. This review examines and critically evaluates the

current methods of how specific centrally-controlled performance modifiers have been

manipulated, within previous deception studies. From the 31 studies reviewed, 10 reported

positive effects on performance, encouraging future investigations to explore the mechanisms

responsible for influencing pacing, and consequently how deceptive approaches can further

facilitate performance. The review acts to discuss the use of expectation manipulation not only

to examine which methods of deception are successful in facilitating performance, but also to

understand further the key components used in the regulation of exercise and performance.

Introduction

 

4  

Paragraph Number 1 Pacing strategies are set according to an athlete’s expectations of the

task they are required to perform. Psychological and physiological state, expected distance,

previous experience, motivation and self-belief are all informative factors used for a calculation

of initial pace (44). Once the exercise task begins, on-going adjustments to pace operate via a

feedback control loop, including both endogenous physiological information, and exogenous

sensory information about the external environment (68,69). Physiological responses to

exercise have been suggested to occur as part of a complex integration system, where

physiological changes interact with each other through feedforward and feedback systems

(52,62). The brain has a central control function whereby it integrates complex physiological

information fed back from the periphery with exogenous sensory cues, such that feedforward

regulation of exertion is sustainable given the proximity of the athlete to the endpoint, and that

homeostasis is maintained (52,62).

Paragraph Number 2 The setting of pace is based upon prior knowledge and experience of the

task, commonly referred to as the concept of teleoanticipation (68). It has been suggested that

teleoanticipation has a greater influence on pace than physiological feedback (1), supported by

the observation that athletes maintain submaximal levels of work for the majority of an event

then suddenly increase effort towards the end (67). However, in very long duration events there

is a high degree of uncertainty regarding changes in the environment and physiological status,

which may demand a more responsive approach to pacing than the execution of a pre-formed

anticipatory strategy (46). During extended duration events, a range of physiological,

psychological and tactical factors are integrated and processed by the brain as a central

mechanism to determine pacing strategies (50).

 

5  

Paragraph Number 3 Task expectations alter the feedforward control of pacing strategies in

an attempt to optimise performance. Athletes also continuously compare expected perceptions

of exertion with how they actually feel during an event. The brain’s central control modifies

perceptions and expectations to produce optimal performance via internal and external stimuli,

that governor exercise regulation. Figure 1 illustrates a number of centrally acting performance

modifiers (44) that integrate with the feedforward and feedback regulation control-loop, each

of which have previously been deceptively manipulated in an attempt to understand their

influence and consequential importance in pacing and performance regulation. Deception is a

strategy modifying athletes’ expectations both prior to and during performance, and acts to

alter the athletes’ perceptions and knowledge of current or previous performances. There is still

confusion regarding this issue in part because many different experimental designs have been

used and to date there has been limited consolidated appraisal of what the findings of such

studies mean. A recent review has aimed to provide clarity of the physiological and

psychological effects of different deception methods; specifically the comparison of

‘feedforward’ and ‘feedback’ manipulations (28). The present review provides an additional

mechanistic appraisal of these manipulation techniques upon specific performance modifiers.

It evaluates the use of deception techniques to highlight the importance of such performance

modifiers within the regulation of effort and pace during exercise. The studies are categorised

in accordance to the modifier investigated, with the key approaches and findings summarised

in Table 1.

Scope of the Review

Paragraph Number 4 The review of literature was conducted using electronic databases;

PubMed, Google Scholar and EBSCO for articles reporting deception manipulations upon

exercise and performance, up to the latest date of September 2013. The computer search was

for English-language articles inclusive of, but not restricted to, the following search terms:

 

6  

“deception”, “performance”, “expectation”, “manipulation”, “pacing”, “fatigue”, “perception”,

“exertion”, “central-modifiers”, “feedback”, “attention” and “motivation”. The inclusion

criteria was determined as studies employing deceptive manipulations upon centrally-acting

performance modifiers, namely; knowledge of endpoint, intensity and time deception,

placebos, self-belief, psychological influences, presence of competitors and prior experience.

This approach yielded 31 studies with appropriate inclusion criteria.

Knowledge of Endpoint

Paragraph Number 5 It is proposed that the subconscious brain takes into account the

projected ‘finishing points’ and the afferent feedback from the muscles to regulate an

appropriate pacing template (21). Manipulation of exercise duration or distance endpoint is a

deception method aimed to investigate the theory of teleoanticipation. Since optimal

performance and pacing strategies are suggested to be pre-set upon a judgement of the

endpoint, if the endpoint knowledge is unknown, incorrect or unexpectedly changed, in-task

regulation using feedforward and feedback resources is affected (See Table 1).

Unknown Duration

Paragraph Number 6 When an athlete is unaware of the absolute distance or duration of a

task, they reduce their work rate and perform more economically in their use of physiological

resources, to maintain a reserve in anticipation of the endpoint (4,13,16,34). Once the endpoint

is known and approaching, and the task is no longer an open-loop activity, caution subsides

and work rate increases (61). Performance is then actively regulated using a calculation of the

momentary sensations, and the relative amount of the event remaining (18). It has been

proposed that the employment of a ‘Hazard Score’ created from the product of momentary-

RPE with the fraction of distance remaining, links perceptual experience to distance remaining

(18). The closer the athlete gets to the known endpoint, the higher they will allow RPE to rise,

 

7  

given that the risk in doing so is within a calculation of the success-failure equation (61). This

is clearly demonstrated when participants are only given instruction of their endpoint in the last

kilometre of the bout (58). When the endpoint is revealed only when informed to terminate the

task, thus the decrease in uncertainty is understandably inhibited and under-performances are

seen (20). This is due to the lower initial work pace, and underutilisation of available resources.

Paragraph Number 7 Whilst no significant differences in power output, heart rate and pacing

were identified in previous research during unknown trials (41, 64), subconscious attempts to

conserve energy were indicated by significant reductions in heart rate and perceived exertion

during other unknown endpoint manipulations (19). This concurs with the proposed principles

of teleoanticipation, where knowledge of duration has been found to effect perceived exertion

(17) and more specifically, the uncertainty of the endpoint influences a lower RPE to avoid

premature fatigue (61). Participants have been consistently shown to perceive the same exercise

intensity to be lower, producing lower RPE values, if they were expecting the duration to be

longer (3,4,49).

Paragraph Number 8 Moreover, when participants are unaware of the task duration, they tend

to have a greater dependence on afferent feedback from the periphery (13). This is supported

by reports of afferent feedback having a greater emphasis as an exercise regulator (34).

Conversely, false expectations of the distance or duration remaining, prevent the appropriate

interpretation of physiological afferents (2,61), subsequently leading to under-performances.

An under-performance represents the product of incorrect peripheral feedback, controlling the

rate of increase in RPE. When the endpoint knowledge is omitted, it prevents the successful

exercise regulation of allowing peak-RPE values to coincide with the endpoint of exercise.

False Information about Task Duration

 

8  

Paragraph Number 9 Significant changes in RPE are also found during closed-loop activities,

when the expectation of exercise endpoint has been manipulated (3,4,49), illustrated in Table

1. When participants are deceived about the duration of a task, they tend to perform on the

basis of expected rather than actual distance (2,45). Participants who are incorrectly informed

in this way perform slower (2), most likely because of disruptions to the ‘template-RPE’, set

in anticipation of the false duration (69) not corresponding with the ‘actual-RPE’ elicited

during the exercise (61). This supports the proposition that perceived exertion is not only the

product of combined internal afferent signals, but also external and environmental cues (47,67).

Paragraph Number 10 When incorrect information regarding absolute duration is supplied,

performance times vary but, there are limited effects on physiological measures such as heart

rate and power output (41). Participants completed each time trial according to a pre-

determined intensity, which they perceived to be optimal to perform the expected distance.

This supports the notion that athletes perform on the basis of the perceived rather than actual

distance remaining (41,45). This adds further emphasis to the importance of anticipation of the

expected endpoint, used within the feedforward central control of pacing for optimal

performance (43,52,67).

Unexpected Changes in Duration

Paragraph Number 11 Since it is suggested pacing is based on the anticipation of the expected

endpoint, when an alternative task duration is announced during performance disruption to the

pre-established template occurs. Methods of deception, as outlined in Table 1, announcing an

unexpected modification to the duration during a performance, have previously led to under-

performances (3,4,19). Although these methods create under-performances, the adopted pacing

strategy differs depending whether it is an addition or a reduction in the duration. When an

unexpected stop in duration is presented to athletes an underutilisation of resources is observed

(3,61). This would suggest that the employment of the ‘endspurt’ is halted, hindering

 

9  

performance and not fully exploiting the pacing template pre-set in anticipation of the

informed, albeit incorrect, endpoint. Similarly, participants act with the expectation to complete

the incorrectly informed distance, utilising all available resources to produce optimal

performance. Therefore an unexpected addition of duration would subsequently produce an

early termination or a disruption of homeostasis before the true end of the exercise bout (4,61).

Paragraph Number 12 The influence of this deception on RPE was evidenced only at the

announcement of a change in duration (3,4). Whilst RPE was affected, physiological stress

such as heart rate (HR) was not, suggesting that these changes in RPE profiles could not be

limited to physiological mechanisms (47,51). It has been proposed that RPE changes could

have been influenced by psychological emotions associated with the change in expectation of

duration (1,54), supported in an additional study where increases in anger and frustration have

been observed (13). Such findings are in agreement with the suggestion that physical sensations

measured using RPE are distinct from sense of effort (59). It is important to note that a previous

investigation found expected exercise length had little effect on RPE (17), which is in

disagreement with other literature (3,4,19). The manipulation within this investigation was,

however, slightly different as it involved shifting from an unexpected change in duration to an

unknown duration. The results then reflect previous effects found on RPE when performing

exercise with an unknown endpoint (13).

Paragraph Number 13 Whilst the methods used to deceive participants about task endpoint

are not reflective of what happens in real race situations, such investigations have provided

important insights about how knowledge and expectations of the endpoint are used to regulate

effort. When deceived of a task’s endpoint participants are seen to underperform either in

reservation of resources as a precautionary measure, or they are unable to interpret afferent

feedback correctly. Furthermore, deception studies have established that an athlete’s pacing

regulation is pre-set in correspondence with the perceived, albeit manipulated, endpoint.

 

10  

Therefore the pacing strategy adopted is inappropriate for the actual duration performed.

Additionally influences upon RPE were found to correspond in line with the suggestion that

perceived exertion is related to the proportion of time or distance remaining

(3,4,16,18,19,21,41,49).

Time Deception

Paragraph Number 14 Previously discussed deception studies modifying task endpoint

expectations have provided deceived information through feedforward and feedback methods,

and during both open and closed loop activities. However other methods investigating time

expectations have employed time deceptions only through feedback information and only

during ecological closed-loop events (Table 1). Within these studies methodological

differences are seen regarding the presentation style of the feedback. Performance times are

either blinded to participants, or displayed as accurate/inaccurate continuous or splits feedback.

The different methods resulted in different outcomes. Inaccurate time splits did not affect

performance (1,12), whilst continuous false time conditions did influence performance

outcomes (40). However, this influence was upon time to exhaustion (40); a measure of

exercise capacity, rather than time trial performance (1,12).

Paragraph Number 15 Although there was no difference in performance times across the time

deception studies, the pacing strategy employed differed (36,60,65). Similar to having no

knowledge of the endpoint prior to the activity commencing, when receiving inaccurate or

blind time feedback during an exercise bout, pacing strategies are performed conservatively

until better reference information is available and the endpoint proximity becomes more

certain. Less exertion was performed at the beginning of the bout (40), and a greater endspurt

was seen in a slower clock condition (60). Each illustrative of a reservation until able to allow

the associated risk of increased exertion, approach the upper boundaries of the RPE-template.

 

11  

Intensity Deception

Paragraph Number 16 Another approach in deception studies has been to misinform

participants about the intensity at which they are performing. Similar to pre-task deceptions of

duration, physiological (HR) variables, psychological (RPE) variables and performance times

were not affected by manipulations of pre-task performance intensity (24,48). When

participants were informed their subsequent trial would be two RPE values below their

previous trial scores, it was found to have no influence on performance. Participants used actual

judgement of sense of effort rather than relying on previous experience and knowledge of

feelings (48). This is in contrast to when provided with incorrect distance knowledge. This

actual judgement of regulation during exercise is inconsistent with the teleoanticipation

principle (43,69) and template-RPE theories (61). As a consequence when deceived by

intensity, the employment of pre-setting of pacing strategy based upon expectation is not

evidenced.

Paragraph Number 17 Some studies have found improvements in performance when

manipulating intensity feedback during the event rather than providing intensity information

prior to commencement (39,55,57). These studies allowed no prior knowledge of, or any

influencing expectation of the intensity; the deception was simply employed by manipulating

the feedback received during the trial. It has been demonstrated pacing (39,57), performance

and RPE (57) were positively influenced by deception of intensity. Evidently the differences

in the presentation of the manipulation provide different outcomes; with feedback manipulation

of intensity, during performance, having a greater facilitation on performance than feedforward

intensity manipulations.

Influence of methods and modalities of deception

Paragraph Number 18 Contrasting results are seen in the use of different presentation modes;

splits or continuous, in previous deception studies. Studies providing accurate and inaccurate

 

12  

feedback splits, of distance or time, found no effect on performance in trained (1,12) and

untrained participants (19). However others have provided continuous time or intensity

feedback, which have seen improvements (39,40,57). This disparity and confusion could be

due to differences in the type of feedback given. An evaluation of studies using time

(12,40,60,65) and distance feedback (1,20), show no effect upon performance, conversely

studies that manipulate intensity feedback (39,57) observe performance alterations. This could

be interpreted as intensity information having a greater influence on performance regulation

than centrally-controlled modifiers such as duration or distance knowledge. Additionally it

could be due to the varying individual reliance on different feedback variables, as trained

athletes, when offered, did not use heart rate as a physiological external cue to regulate their

pacing (41). Furthermore, it remains unclear whether visual or verbal feedback impacts

performance differently, nonetheless the use of an avatar compared to numeric feedback is

assumed to provide additional motivation, stimulated by a “head-to-head” competition (15).

Visual displays of feedback are suggested to buffer physiological perceptions when

performing, as the perceptions of internal sensations are influenced by external environments

and their effect on subjective emotional experiences (47).

Paragraph Number 19 A further explanation for the inconsistency in findings could be due to

the magnitude of deception used, regardless of the type of information given; distance, time or

intensity. Although similar ranges of magnitudes have previously been employed when trying

to deceive the feedback of a performance, differences in results have been found. No effects

upon performance times have been seen when using deception feedback magnitudes of 5%

(12,39,65) and 10% (60), although all deceptions went undetected. The limited effects upon

performance could be that the magnitude was too marginal to be effective, such that the

decrements or increments produce a too small a range between actual and the false feedback

presented (1). In contrast, a 12% deception appears too large a discrepancy to be

 

13  

subconsciously undetected (2). The difficulty in comparing the deception methods is

compounded by both the wide variety of methods used, as well as the magnitude of

manipulations employed (Table 1). The outcomes of deceptive manipulations are specific to

the duration and intensity of the exercise tasks, highlighting further difficulties determining

optimal deceptive manipulations whilst ensuring such strategies remain undetected.

Paragraph Number 20 Positive results were elicited and deception undetected when using a

2% increase in required power output, during a cycling time trial (57). In this case 2% was

employed as it represents the smallest worthwhile change in performance during the given time

trial distance (56). This, alongside the suggestion that the typical error of time trial performance

is less than 5% (25), supports the previous results of ineffective deception magnitudes of

greater than 5%. Whilst confounding results are apparent within studies manipulating task

expectations via endpoint knowledge, duration and intensity (performance characteristics);

these previous studies have limited clarity due to the lack of psychological considerations for

such expectancy effects. Whilst the full effects have not been investigated or quantified,

previous theories can be drawn upon for suggestive impacts of the different approaches. Such

that proposed mediators of perceived exertion and its effect on pacing and fatigue are suggested

to be task expectancies, emotions, previous experience and memory (51).

Placebos

Paragraph Number 21 Task expectancies, prior to and during performance, have also been

manipulated by using prescribed substances or placebos. Expectancies are an integral part of

the placebo effect (29) and researchers conclude that both positive and negative beliefs

associated with placebos and their effects, significantly affect performance (12). Psychological

variables such as motivation, expectancy and the interaction of these constructs with

physiological variables might be significant factors in driving positive and negative outcomes

 

14  

(12). The investigation of placebos has become more popular in sport and exercise science;

however the use of the placebo effect in sports is still in its infancy (11). There are also, many

speculative anecdotal examples of what may be legitimate placebo effects (12). Expectations

of substance-specific effects seem to trigger many physiological and psychological reactions

(30), independent of the substance given (22,29,63). Within this type of expectancy

manipulation, the deception element of the methodology is known, with the participant’s

acknowledgement prior to the investigation, of a substance’s possible effects. This deception

method is different to others explored within this review, in which the participants are fully un-

aware of any undue effect on performance that is due to take place. Although a different

method, in that its prescription to enhance expectancies is known and a substance is

administrated, the ‘placebo effect’ is a positive outcome resulting from the belief that a

beneficial treatment has been received (11), Moreover an athlete’s recognition that the potential

false beliefs could impact performance is of interest for sport scientists (10). A full review of

the previous investigations employing placebo deceptions is beyond the scope of the current

review, however, a recent comprehensive review provides more specific insight (11).

Self-belief and Psychological Influences

Paragraph Number 22 Athletes’ expectancies of the task have also been altered via

instructions (32), praise (27) or enhanced expectancies of a method (32). Changes in

performance expectations prior to the start, applied with motivational anecdotal statements

towards biased techniques, have elicited does-response effects (32). It has also been suggested

that the change in expectation can influence the attentional thoughts an athlete has before and

during exertion (32,66). Previous manipulations have tried to limit the frequency of associative

thoughts directed towards peripheral symptoms and high perceived exertion when fatigue

increases (5), in order to improve performance. Additionally, it has been suggested that

manipulation of an individual’s positive self-belief towards the benefits of dissociative

 

15  

attentional thoughts, will gain a supplementary advantage on performance (32). These

centrally-acting expectations are then combined with the peripheral systems, to influence

physiological self-regulation either through changes in pacing, directing attentional focus or

exercise termination (53).

Paragraph Number 23 It has been suggested that a person’s self-efficacy beliefs determine

their motivation and subsequent behaviour (7,24). This is specifically thought to be the case

when performance is impeded by depriving or deceiving participants about performance or

progress information (27). Self-efficacy manipulations using positive false feedback after an

event increased performance on subsequent tasks (27,33,38). Positive self-efficacy feedback,

although inaccurate, lowered perceived effort and increased task motivation (32,55), reduced

anxiety (33) and heightened affective responses to the exercise (27,37). The opposite effect

was found with negative performance feedback, where self-efficacy and performance

decreased (27,36). These results together demonstrate both feedback of efficiency and of

performance results enhance performance when positive, but are detrimental to performance

when negative. A possible explanation is that the more positive an effective response is during

exercise, the greater the desire to maintain or increase exercise intensity (8).

An associated component of self-efficacy is the confidence in being able to complete the

exercise task required (7) without catastrophic failure before the end (23). Confidence maybe

reinforced through repeated performances or experience; the memory of which, has been

proposed to be one of the determinants of perceived exertion and effort regulation during a

subsequent similar exercise task (51). Furthermore emotions and emotion-regulation are

offered as possible mediators for the performance or pacing modifications in different

deception methods of previous performance alterations (discussed later in the review), which

reinforce false beliefs or self-efficacy regarding previous or current performance capability

 

16  

(12,39,57). The addition of emotional influences to the manipulations employed in these

studies may be significant since improvements in performance are not apparent when only false

physiological performance feedback is supplied (1,21,65,60). Although improvements have

been observed in performances when increasing expectancies of subsequent tasks, more

investigation into the mechanisms of expectancy manipulation and mind-body interactions are

required (4,19,32,48,55).

Presence of Competitors

Paragraph Number 24 Motivation is an additional mediator of perceived exertion (51) where

performances have been seen to increase due to the motivation that feedback brings (34).

Alongside emotional responses, the visual use of “head-to-head” competition introduces

competitor motivation which is thought to be a reason for the inconsistent results in previous

deception studies comparing performing alone or in competitive trials (15). Accordingly, it is

anticipated positive feedback or perceived greater ability than average or a fellow competitor

can have permanent effects on motor learning and in-transfer and retention test performance

(55,67). In contrast, extrinsic motivation of monetary reward did not affect cycling time trial

performance, suggesting pacing strategies are stable and independent of motivation (26).

Furthermore training status may influence motivational responses as it has been suggested that

highly trained athletes may be able to use physiological reserve capacities irrespective of

competition or performing alone (15).

Paragraph Number 25 The majority of previous deception methods have manipulated

performance within an ‘alone’ condition. Whilst this isolates the specific effects of the chosen

deception mechanism upon performance, the replication of a sport-specific competitive setting

is an increasingly valid line of research. The influence of a competitor encourages the

performer to make decisions they would not necessarily face if racing alone, and would not be

initially incorporated into the anticipatory-pacing template (61,62). Support for the

 

17  

enhancements seen in performance when employing competitors to manipulate external

feedback, is that the anticipatory setting of such template is not entirely robust or fixed (15). It

would seem enhancements can be elicited if the athlete risks the disruption of the template

when responding to the actions of the competitor within a competitive situation. This could

explain the reasons for magnitudes of deception having different effects, where a 5% alteration

may be too great to maintain or too high an escalation away from the pacing-template boundary

(39). Equally a smaller magnitude of 2%, could be established as being able to provide a

positive influence upon the balance of the willingness to exert maximum effort, against the

negative factors of fatigue and homeostatic disruption (14,15,42).

Paragraph Number 26 Alternatively the visual display of “head-to-head” competition could

also provide external distraction which could improve performance by influencing attentional

focus (15). It may act to direct attention away from the internal sensations of fatigue, with

dissociative attention improving performance by deterring thoughts of perceived exertion,

shown by reduced RPE (32). In contrast, RPE was not significantly altered and performance

not increased when in the presence of another runner (9), however without the specific

instruction to compete, a competitive environment could be considered indirect or subjective

in this case.

Prior experience

Paragraph Number 27 Previous experience is also suggested to be an important variable in

exercise performance (67) and a possible mediator for perceived exertion (51). Where

manipulation of feedforward processes such as the omission of exercise duration negates the

role of previous experience (61), the use of feedback, whether true or false allows the

perception of current performance to be referred to past performances (1,34). This allowance

of conscious interpretations of the performance feedback influences both perceived exertion

and pacing of the current performance (39). Obscuring elapsed time prevents the adoption of a

 

18  

conscious pacing strategy, whilst permitting an assessment of subconscious control to create a

pacing strategy based on prior experience (2). Visual or clock manipulations have also

previously instigated the subconscious reflection on previous experience, as athletes were

perceived to be performing similar to, or against their previous baseline performance, through

manipulated expectancy (39,57).

Paragraph Number 28 During exercise, sensations of exertion are consciously interpreted by

drawing upon mental representations and beliefs that have been constructed and reinforced

through similar previous occurrences (31). Athletes’ performance beliefs can potentially

influence their governance of efferent muscular control (39). While mechanisms for this are

still speculative, it is proposed that accurate and objective performance feedback strengthens

the comparison of schemas between past and present exercise bouts (34). Likewise an

assumption would be that false feedback could be used to alter the performance template.

Deceiving an increase in ability, would challenge the perceptual component of the performance

template used for regulation within subsequent bouts (39). This alteration was seen in the

feedforward manipulation of incorrect distance knowledge where performance increased in the

subsequent bout after performing a longer than perceived task (45). Similarly manipulation of

feedback during the task was also effective, allowing perceptions of a successful previous

performance influence pacing strategy in a successive bout (39). However, whilst

improvements were seen at the start of the successive trial, the participants were unable to

maintain the ‘actual’ increased performance from what they perceived to have completed

previously. The researchers interpreted that, although a mismatch between their afferent

sensations and their expected outcomes caused elevated RPE levels, they have a conscious

determination to persist based upon knowledge from previous experience that they can achieve

a specific level of performance. Although this mentality is proposed, during the study RPE was

not collected for the first two trials, since it is proposed it could emphasise attentional thoughts

 

19  

towards to the mismatch between afferent sensations and the deceived digital feedback of the

performance (39). This highlights a methodological obstacle within the use of deception and

ensuring it is undetected.

Paragraph Number 29 Somewhat surprisingly, feedback has been found to be secondary in

importance to previous experience, since cyclists deprived of performance feedback and prior

distance knowledge, were able to gradually define their pacing strategy over four successive

trials (34). Equally cyclists produced similar times when presented with incorrect distance

feedback when compared to correct feedback (1). They suggested distance feedback was not a

prerequisite for optimum performance when participants had previous experience of the

distance. This is supported by the conclusion that the learnt pacing template is robust and not

negatively affected by subsequent pacing variation (35). Subsequently it is suggested if there

is an absence or lack of relevant experience then perhaps, pacing strategies become more

dependent upon the interpretation of sensory afferent feedback or RPE, rather than external

feedback (39). This is reported in a more recent investigation on untrained participants where

the absence of feedback and distance knowledge had no effect in comparison to when full

distance knowledge was provided (64).

Change in Expectancies

Paragraph Number 30 Each deception method reviewed acted to influence the participants’

expectancies of performance. Task expectation is a suggested mediator of performance (51). It

creates a mismatch between perceived and actual performance from the manipulated

information provided. The incongruity between the information provided and what is expected

has been found to influence performance, although the true impact remains unclear. It has been

suggested that when participants perceive they are performing poorly it would be expected for

them to increase power output or modify RPE (61). This hypothesised observation was seen in

 

20  

previous investigations (40,47,48,57) however in contrast, it has also been found that

negatively manipulated feedback did not influence changes in performance times (60). Further

an opposing belief is that when a goal is perceived to be unachievable, because of poor

performance, performance decreases (36).

Paragraph Number 31 Additional disparity in results are seen when participants perceive

performance to be better than expected. It has been suggested that this would pose no threat to

the completion of the task, so physiological performance remains unchanged (47). Other

arguments put forward are that when receiving positive feedback, although inaccurate, it

induces significant alterations in physiological variables. Oxygen consumption decreased

compared to false negative feedback (12), and blind feedback trials (65), although no

significant difference in performance times were found (12,65). Conversely, when performing

better than expected, athletes are seen to increase performance because of the influence of the

success-motivation then optimising the setting and regulation of exercise intensity (36). It has

been suggested that further reasons for the inconsistency in this area of research is arguably, a

lack of data relating to the mechanisms of the underlying belief-effects, of which the perception

of performance impacts (12).

Summary

Paragraph Number 32 It is clear that there is little consistency across previous interventions

that manipulate performance modifiers. Previous investigations have largely differed in their

methods of deception, the diverse measures and durations of performance, and the limited

considerations for the mechanisms underpinning the deceived variables. Additionally, previous

methods have chosen to elicit theory-based outcomes but are limited in ecological validity

using protocols such as unknown and unexpected changes in duration or exercise capacity.

From this review however, deception is highlighted as a useful methodological approach

manipulating performance modifiers to understand their individual and combined importance

 

21  

in an athlete’s exercise regulation. It highlights different performance modifiers that are used

during exercise regulation and whether such modifiers are more effective to performance as

feedforward or feedback information.

Paragraph Number 33 Ten of the 31 studies reviewed have evidenced that deception methods

can elicit improvements in performance (Table 1). Deception of task intensity has been found

to have a positive influence when employed during the task rather than as an alteration of

feedforward expectation. Time and distance deceptions have been shown to be less effective

in eliciting performance improvements, despite alterations to pacing strategies. Psychological

influences such as self-efficacy and motivation manipulation have been shown to improve

performance, through expectancy modification. Deception research therefore significantly

warrants further investigation into how deceptive interventions can be employed in practice to

improve performance. Applications of manipulated information need to consider the variable

used, the timing of deception; prior to or during, and the presentation style; verbal, visual, splits

or continuous. Furthermore consideration towards presenting the optimal magnitude able to

improve performance whist remaining undetected, is of great importance. Successful methods

of manipulations evidenced from the review of literature are those using deceptions of intensity

variables, through visual feedback buffering physiological sensations and with the use of a

competitive setting to stimulate motivation. Additionally implementing the use of a perceived,

successful previous performance as experience and expectation for future tasks, would

undoubtedly aim to see improvements in performance.

 

22  

References 1. Albertus Y, Tucker R, Gibson ASC, Lambert EV, Hampson DB, Noakes TD. Effect of

Distance Feedback on Pacing Strategy and Perceived Exertion during Cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005b; 37(3): 461–468.

2. Ansley L, Robson PJ, St Clair Gibson A, Noakes TD. Anticipatory pacing strategies during supramaximal exercise lasting longer than 30 s. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004; 36(2): 309–14.

3. Baden DA, Warwick-evans L, Lakomy J. Am I Nearly There? The Effect of Anticipated Running Distance on Perceived Exertion and Attentional Focus. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2004;26(2): 1–17.

4. Baden DA, McLean TL, Tucker R, Noakes TD, St Clair Gibson A. Effect of anticipation during unknown or unexpected exercise duration on rating of perceived exertion, affect, and physiological function. Br J Sports Med.2005; 39(10): 742–6

5. Balagué N, Hristovski R, Aragonés D, Tenenbaum G. Nonlinear model of attention focus during accumulated effort. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2012; 13(5): 591–597.

6. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

7. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1997; 84(2): 191–215.

8. Baron B, Moullan F, Deruelle F, Noakes TD. The role of emotions on pacing strategies and performance in middle and long duration sport events. Br J Sports Med. 2011; 45(6): 511–7.

9. Bath D, Turner LA, Bosch AN, Tucker R, Lambert EV, Thompson KG, ST Clair Gibson A.The Effect of a Second Runner on Pacing Strategy and RPE During a Running Time Trial. Int J Sport Phys Perf. 2012;7(1):26-32

10. Beedie CJ, Coleman DA, Foad, AJ. Positive and negative placebo effects resulting from the deceptive administration of an ergogenic aid. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 2007 17(3): 259–269.

11. .Beedie CJ, Foad, A. The placebo effect in sports performance: a brief review. Sports Med, 2009;39(4):313-329

12. Beedie CJ, Lane AM, Wilson MG. A possible role for emotion and emotion regulation in physiological responses to false performance feedback in 10 mile laboratory cycling. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2012; 37(4): 269–77.

13. Billaut F, Bishop DJ, Schaerz S, Noakes TD. Influence of knowledge of sprint number on pacing during repeated-sprint exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001; 43(4): 665–72.

14. Brehm JW, Self EA. The intensity of motivation. Annu Rev Psychol. 1989; 40: 109-131 15. Corbett J, Barwood MJ, Ouzounoglou A, Thelwell R, Dicks M. Influence of competition

on performance and pacing during cycling exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012; 44(3): 509–15.

16. Coquart JB, Garcin M. Knowledge of the endpoint: effect on perceptual values. Int J Sports Med, 2008; 29 (12): 976-9.

17. Coquart JB, Stevenson A, Garcin M. Causal influences of expected running length on ratings of perceived exertion and estimation time limit scales. Int J of Sport Psychol. 2011; 42(2): 149-166.

18. de Koning JJ, Foster C, Bakkum A, Kloppenburg S, Thiel C, Joseph T, Cohen J, et al. Regulation of pacing strategy during athletic competition. PloS one. 2011 6(1)

 

23  

19. Eston R, Stansfield R, Westoby P, Parfitt G. Effect of deception and expected exercise duration on psychological and physiological variables during treadmill running and cycling. Psychophysiology. 2012; 49(4): 462–9.

20. Faulkner J, Arnold T, Eston R. Effect of accurate and inaccurate distance feedback on performance markers and pacing strategies during running. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011; 21(6): 176–83.

21. Faulkner J, Parfitt G, Eston RG. The rating of perceived exertion during competitive running scales with time. Psychophysiol. 2008; 45(6): 977-85.

22. Foad AJ, Beedie CJ, Coleman DA. Pharmacological and psychological effects of caffeine ingestion in 40-km cycling performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40(1): 158.

23. Foster C, Hendrickson KJ, Peyer K,deKoning JJ, Lucia A, Battista RA, Hettinga FJ, Porcari JP, Wright G. Pattern of developing the performance template. Br J Sports Med. 2009; 43(10): 765-9

24. Hampson DB, St Clair Gibson A, Lambert MI, et al. Deception and perceved exertion during high-intensity running bouts. Percept Mot Skills. 2004; 98: 1027–38

25. Hopkins WG, Schabort EJ, Hawley JA. Reliability of power in physical performance tests. Sports Med. 2001; 31(3): 211–34.

26. Hulleman M, De Koning JJ, Hettinga FJ, Foster C. The effect of extrinsic motivation on cycle time trial performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007; 39(4): 709.

27. Hutchinson JC, Sherman T, Martinovic N, Tenenbaum G. The Effect of Manipulated Self-Efficacy on Perceived and Sustained Effort. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2008; 20(4): 457–472.

28. Jones HS, Williams EL, Bridge CA, Marchant D, Midgley AW, Micklewright D, Mc Naughton LR. Physiological and Psychological Effects of Deception on Pacing Strategy and Performance: A Review. Br J Sports Med. 2013;Sept 4[Epub ahead of print]doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0094-1

29. Kalasountas V, Reed J, Fitzpatrick J. The Effect of Placebo-Induced Changes in Expectancies on Maximal Force Production in College Students. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2007; 19(1): 116–124.

30. Kirsch I. Specifying nonspecifics: Psychological mechanisms of placebo effects. In A. Harrington, The placebo effect: Interdisciplinary explorations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997: 166-186

31. Lambert EV, St Clair Gibson A, Noakes TD. Complex system model of fatigue: integrative homeostatic control of peripheral physiological systems during exercise in humans. Br J Sports Med 2005; 39;52-62

32. Lohse KR, Sherwood DE. Defining the focus of attention: effects of attention on perceived exertion and fatigue. Front Psychol. 2011; 2; 332.

33. Marquez DX, Jerome GJ, McAuley E, Snook E, Canaklisova, S. Self-efficacy manip- ulation and state anxiety responses to exercise in low active women. Psychol & Health, 2002; 17(6), 783–791.

34. Mauger AR, Jones AM, Williams CA. Influence of feedback and prior experience on pacing during a 4-km cycle time trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009; 41(2): 451–8.

35. Mauger AR, Jones AM, Williams CA. Influence of exercise variation on the retention of a pacing strategy. Europ J App Physiol. 2010; 108(5): 1015-23

36. Mauger AR, Jones AM, Williams CA. The effect of non-contingent and accurate performance feedback on pacing and time trial performance in 4-km track cycling. Br J Sports Med. 2011; 45(3): 225-9

37. McAuley E. Talbot HM, Martinez S. Manipulating self-efficacy in the exercise environment in women: Influences on affective responses. Health Psychol, 1999; 18, 288–294.

 

24  

38. McKay B, Lewthwaite G, Wulf, G. Enhanced expectancies improve performance under pressure. Front in Psychol. 2012; 3(8): 1-5

39. Micklewright D, Papadopoulou E, Swart J, Noakes TD. Previous experience influences pacing during 20 km time trial cycling. Br J Sports Med. 2010; 44(13): 952–60.

40. Morton RH. Deception by manipulating the clock calibration influences cycle ergometer endurance time in males. J Sci Med Sports. 2009; 12(2): 332–7.

41. Nikolopoulos V, Arkinstall MJ, Hawley JA. Pacing strategy in simulated cycle time-trials is based on perceived rather than actual distance. J Sci Med Sports. 2001; 4(2): 212–9.

42. Noakes TD, St Clair Gibson A. Logical limitations to the “catastrophe” models of fatigue during exercise in humans. Br J Sports Med. 2004; 38(5):648-9

43. Noakes TD, St Clair Gibson A, Lambert EV. From catastrophe to complexity: a novel model of integrative central neural regulation of effort and fatigue during exercise in humans: summary and conclusions. Br J Sports Med. 2005; 39(2): 120–4.

44. Noakes TD. Time to move beyond a brainless exercise physiology: the evidence for complex regulation of human exercise performance. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 2011; 36(1): 23–35.

45. Paterson S, Marino FE. Effect of deception of distance on prolonged cycling performance. Percept Mot Skills, 2004; 98 (3): 1017-26

46. Parry D, Chinnasamy C, Papadopoulou E, Noakes T, Micklewright D. Cognition and performance: anxiety, mood and perceived exertion among Ironman triathletes. Br J Sports Med. 2011; 45(14): 1088-94

47. Parry D, Chinnasamy C, Micklewright D. Optic flow influences perceived exertion during cycling. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2012; 34(4): 444–56.

48. Pires FO, Hammond J. Manipulation effects of prior exercise intensity feedback by the Borg scale during open-loop cycling. Br J Sports Med. 2012; 46(1): 18–22.

49. Rejeski WJ, Ribisl PM. Expected task duration and perceived effort: an attributional analysis. J Sport Psychol. 1980;39: 249–54.

50. Renfree A, West J, Corbett M, Rhoden C, St Clair Gibson A. Complex interplay between determinants of pacing and performance during 20-km cycle time trials. Int J Sports Physiol Perf, 2012; 7(2): 121–9.

51. St Clair Gibson A, Baden DA, Lambert MI, Lambert EV, Harley YXR, Hampson D, Russell VA, Noakes, TD. The conscious perception of the sensation of fatigue. Sports Med. 2003; 33(3): 167-76

52. St Clair Gibson A, Noakes TD. Evidence for complex system integration and dynamic neural regulation of skeletal muscle recruitment during exercise in humans. Br J Sports Med.2004; 38(6): 797–806.

53. St Clair Gibson A, Goedecke JH, Harley YX, Myers LJ, Lambert MI, Noakes TD, Lambert EV. Metabolic setpoint control mechanisms in different physiological systems at rest and during exercise. J Theor Biol. 2005; 236(1): 60-72

54. St Clair Gibson A, Lambert EV, Rauch LHG, Tucker R, Baden DA, Foster C, Noakes TD. The role of information processing between the brain and peripheral physiological systems in pacing and perception of effort. Sports Med.2006; 36(8): 705–22.

55. Stoate I, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners. J Sports Sci. 2012; 30 (8): 37–41

56. Stone MR, Thomas K, Wilkinson M, St Clair Gibson A, Thompson, KG. Consistency of perceptual and metabolic responses to a laboratory-based simulated 4,000-m cycling time trial. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011; 111 (8): 1807–13

 

25  

57. Stone MR, Thomas K, Wilkinson M, Jones AM, St Clair Gibson A, Thompson KG. Effects of deception on exercise performance: implications for determinants of fatigue in humans. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012; 44 (3): 534–41

58. Swart J, Lamberts RP, Lambert MI, Lambert EV, Woolrich RW, Johnston S, Noakes TD. Exercising with reserve: exercise regulation by perceived exertion in relation to duration of exercise and knowledge of endpoint. Br J Sports Med. 2009a; 43(10): 775–81.

59. Swart J, Lindsay TR, Lambert MI, Brown JC, Noakes TD. Perceptual cues in the regulation of exercise performance - physical sensations of exercise and awareness of effort interact as separate cues. Br J Sports Med.2012; 46(1): 42–8.

60. Thomas G, Renfree A. The effect of secret clock manipulation on 10km cycle time. Int J Art Sci 2010; 3 (9): 193–202.

61. Tucker R. The anticipatory regulation of performance: the physiological basis for pacing strategies and the development of a perception-based model for exercise performance. Br J Sports Med. 2009; 43(6):392–400.

62. Tucker R, Noakes TD. The physiological regulation of pacing strategy during exercise: a critical review. Br J Sports Med. 2009; 43(6):265-71.

63. Walsch H, Schmidt S, Bihr Y, Wiesch S. The Effects of a Caffeine Placebo and Experimenter Expectation on Blood Pressure, Heart Rate, Weil-Being, and Cognitive Performance. Eur Psychol. 1999:6(1);15-25

64. Williams CA, Bailey SD, Mauger AR. External exercise information provides no immediate additional performance benefit to untrained individuals in time trial cycling. Br J Sports Med. 2012; 46(1): 49–53.

65. Wilson MG, Lane AM, Beedie CJ, Farooq A. Influence of accurate and inaccurate “split-time” feedback upon 10-mile time trial cycling performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012; 112(1): 231–6.

66. Wulf G. Attentional focus and motor skills learning: a review of 10 years of research. Bewegung Training. 2007b;1:4-14

67. Wulf G, Chiviacowsky S, Lewthwaite R. Normative feedback effects on learning a timing task. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010; 81(4): 425-431.

68. Ulmer H-V. Perceived exertion as a part of a feedback system and its interaction with tactical behaviour in endurance sports. In: Borg G, Ottoson D, editors. The perception of exertion in physical work. Hampshire and London: Macmillan Press Ltd 1986:317-26

69. Ulmer, H-V. Concept of an extracellular regulation of muscular metabolic rate during heavy exercise in humans by psychophysiological feedback. Experimentia 1996; 52(5): 416-420.

 

26  

Table 1. Summary table of previous deception manipulations used and their implications.

Author N Exercise

Mode

Duration

Outcomes Implications Performance

Unknown Duration

Billaut et al. (2011)

14

R 6 s - Lower work accumulated in unknown duration***

- No difference in RPE

Unknown endpoint has negative effects on performance

↓

Mauger et al. (2009)

18

C 4 km

- Unknown and no feedback slower than known****

Difference reduced over successive trials so previous experience more important than external feedback

↓

Swart et al. (2009)

18

C 100 km

- RPE changed in relation to the knowledge of the endpoint and the distance remaining

- Performance increased when knew endpoint

Knowledge of endpoint and prior experience influential in pacing

↑

Williams et al. (2012)

22*

C 4 km

- No effect on time to completion or pacing strategy

Distance feedback and previous experience had no effect on performance

Incorrect Duration

Nikolopolous et al. (2001)

6 C 34-40 km

- No effect on pacing strategy

Athletes judge performance based on perceived rather than actual feedback

 

27  

Paterson & Marino (2004)

21

C 24-36 km

- No difference in RPE

- Time to completion and pacing strategy affected in successive trials

Pacing strategy set based on previous experience and effort template

/

Unexpected change in Duration

Baden et al. (2004)

18

R 8-10 mile

- RPE affected - Significantly

higher RPE in correct endpoint trial***

RPE was lower when expected duration was longer

Baden et al. (2005)

30

R 20 min

- Speed, V̇O2, HR and stride frequency were not different

- RPE and affect affected***

RPE not just physical measure of exertion as affected at announcement of unexpected change

/

Coquart et al. (2011)

26*

R 80% of

Time To Exh

- RPE and estimated time limits did not differ across trials

- RPE increased in relation to exercise duration****

RPE linked with anticipation of expected endpoint

Eston et al. (2012)

20*

R+C

To Exh

- Increased RPE and affect when announced unexpected change

RPE lower in unknown – conservation of reserve capacity

/

Intensity Deception

Hampson et al. (2004)

40

R 1680 m

- No effect on RPE

Feedforward manipulation has no effect on

 

28  

post-trial measures of RPE

Micklewright et al. (2010)

29

C 20 km - Pacing strategy affected

- No difference in time

Interaction of feedback and previous experience

Parry et al. (2012) 15

C 20 km - Difference in pacing strategies between slow trials no difference fast

- Lower average RPE in slow than normal

Visual feedback offers as a buffer and influences performance

/

Pires et al. (2012) 8*

C To Exh

- Deception of intensity did not affect RPE

Deception of intensity via RPE ineffective on performance

Stone et al. (2012) 9 C 4 km - Deception affected time to completion and pacing

- Deception trial was faster than control

- Greater anaerobic contribution in deception trial

Deceived feedback derived from previous performances enabled improved performance

↑****

Time Deception

Albertus et al. (2005)

15

C 20 km - No effect on time to completion or pacing strategy

Pacing robust and unaffected by external feedback

Ansley et al. (2004a)

8*

C 30 s - No effect on pacing strategy

Pacing pre-set on anticipated endpoint and previous experience

/

 

29  

Beedie et al. (2012)

7 C 10 mile

- No differences in power output or time to completion between delayed/premature feedback

False feedback influenced emotions but not performance outcomes

Faulkner et al. (2011)

13*

R 6 km - No feedback affected time to completion and pacing strategy

- RPE not affected

Inaccurate distance feedback did not affect pacing and performance

↓****

Mauger et al. (2011)

5 C 4 km - Faster performance with correct feedback than inaccurate feedback ***

- Inaccurate feedback also affects pacing strategy

Feedback is important for pacing

↑***

Morton (2009) 12*

C To Exh

- Longer in time to exhaustion in slow trial**

- No difference in time to exhaustion in fast trial

Feedback influential on performance

↑***

Thomas & Renfree (2010)

8 C 10 km - Clock manipulation affected pacing strategy but not time to completion

Support anticipatory RPE model – conscious RPE compared to template RPE during exercise

Wilson et al. (2012)

7 C 10 mile

- No affect time to completion but affected pacing strategy

Pacing strategies affected by

 

30  

inaccurate and no feedback

Psychological Influences

Hutchinson et al. (2008)

27*

S To Exh

- False positive feedback increased time to exhaustion

Self-efficacy is influential on performance

↑

Marquez (2002)  

59

R 20 min

- False positive feedback decrease anxiety in subsequent bout, false negative reduced self-efficacy

Self-efficacy manipulation reduces state anxiety responses

/

McAuley (1999)

46*

O 20 min

- False positive self-efficacy increased positive effect and decrease negative

Self-efficacy influence affective responses to exercise

↑

McKay (2012) 31

O 40 throw

s

- False positive self-efficacy statements significantly increased throwing accuracy

Enhancing expectancies of performance influences subsequent performance

↑****

Lohse et al. (2011)

60*

S To Exh

- Deception of expectation affected time to exhaustion

Enhancing expectancies improved performance

↑

Stoate et al. (2012) 20

R 10 min

- Lower V̇O2, greater movement efficiency with false feedback

- RPE was affected ***

Enhancing expectancies improved performance – possible motivation effects

↑***

 

31  

Presence of Competitor

Bath et al. (2012) 8 R 5 km - No effect on pacing strategy, running speed, HR or RPE

Pacing strategy is robust and unaltered by the presence of a competitor

Corbett et al. (2012)

14*

C 2 km - Faster time in HH than alone TT***

- Greater rate of anaerobic energy yield in final 1km

Simulated competition affected time to completion and pacing strategy

↑***

*Denotes untrained participants, R=Running, C=Cycling, S=Strength Exercise, ** Denotes significance p<0.01, *** Denotes significance p<0.05, **** Denotes significance p<0.001, ↓ denotes a decline in performance, ↑denotes an improvement in performance,

denotes no effect on performance, / denote an effect of performance dependent on the manipulation direction.

 

32  

FIGURE 1—The possible interventions that can modify exercise performance adapted from a schematic summary (Noakes, 2011) that have previously been deceptively manipulated.

 

33  

List of Figures

Figure 1. The possible interventions that can modify exercise performance adapted from a schematic summary (Noakes, 2011), that have previously been deceptively manipulated.

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary table of previous deception manipulations used and their implications.